Hiring Engineers When AI Writes Our Code

> You're encouraged to use AI to solve the problem. Whatever tools you would want to use as an employee, use them during the interview. We'll give you a Claude, Codex, Cursor, or Gemini license if you need one. I want to see you balance LLM-generated code against your own judgment.

I love this approach, because this is a good litmus test of both criteria I am looking for in engineers.

Part one is "can you use these tools fluently" and the second section is more like "what are you without that suit, Tony Stark?" (or Peter Parker, depending on your movie preference).

The AI part has been moved to a take-home test section in my scenario, but the 40 minutes of the interview is "I want you to make a minor change to the tool you built" & see how a change in requirements bounces through the person's head.

The part 3 is the turn, where I pull the rug out of the assumptions in the original business case.

My company has probably hit max engineering size already, but I've found there are people who build "technical savings" in their architectures and not debt, which makes their next 3 steps velocity without compromising on pr quality.

Excellent read. I've been wondering how the role of the engineer would change with Al, and your approach to hiring really clarifies that. It's all about the judgment behind the code now. Well done!

> Hiring Engineers When AI Writes Our Code

Who wants to debug code written by AI ?

This is a weird product. I don’t think replacing children’s human relationships is a value application of AI

personality should be favored